web02.fireside.fm Wed, 29 Apr 2026 09:18:06 -0500 Fireside (https://fireside.fm) Increments - Episodes Tagged with “Thought Experiments” https://www.incrementspodcast.com/tags/thought%20experiments Tue, 08 Jun 2021 12:00:00 -0700 Vaden Masrani, a senior research scientist in machine learning, and Ben Chugg, a PhD student in statistics, get into trouble arguing about everything except machine learning and statistics. Coherence is somewhere on the horizon. Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. en-us episodic Science, Philosophy, Epistemology, Mayhem Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani Vaden Masrani, a senior research scientist in machine learning, and Ben Chugg, a PhD student in statistics, get into trouble arguing about everything except machine learning and statistics. Coherence is somewhere on the horizon. Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. no Philosophy,Science,Ethics,Progress,Knowledge,Computer Science,Conversation,Error-Correction Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani incrementspodcast@gmail.com #26 - Moral Philosophy Cage Match (with Dan Hageman) https://www.incrementspodcast.com/26 ff921187-d5c1-4185-915c-0525e9c17b89 Tue, 08 Jun 2021 12:00:00 -0700 Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani full Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani Dan Hageman joins us to celebrate our completely fair treatment of Derek Parfit, to utterly agree with our use of thought experiments, and to deem us the world's most renown meta-ethicists. 1:33:35 no In a rare turn of events, it just so happened that one or perhaps both of your charming co-hosts spewed a bit of nonsense about Derek Parfit in a previous episode, and we had to bring in a heavy hitter to sort us out. Today we're joined by friend of the podcast Mr. Dan Hageman, immuno-oncologist by day and aspiring ethicist by night, who gently takes us to task for misunderstanding Parfit and the role of ethical theorizing, and for ignoring the suffering of pigeons. The critiques land, and convince Vaden that we should dedicate our resources towards providing safe and affordable contraception for Apex predators. We cover all sorts of ground in this episode, including: - Mistakes we made in our thought experiments episode - Is it possible to over-theorize? - Wild animal suffering - Don't fish eat other fish?! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xHMyvtUbhM&ab_channel=moviequotescentral) - Feline family planning - Antinatalism - Moral Cluelessness - Population ethics and the repugnant conclusion (Ha!) - Similarities and differences between theoretical physics and theoretical philosophy References: - Organization for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (https://www.preventsuffering.org/#:~:text=The%20Organisation%20for%20the%20Prevention,suffering%20of%20all%20sentient%20beings.) (OPIS) - Lukas Gloor's post (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/HyeTgKBv7DjZYjcQT/the-problem-with-person-affecting-views) on population ethics - Wild Animal Initiative (https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/) - Pigeon Contraception (https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/pigeon-contraception) (yes, really) - Hilary Greaves on moral cluelessness (talk+transcript (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/LdZcit8zX89rofZf3/evidence-cluelessness-and-the-long-term-hilary-greaves), paper (https://philpapers.org/rec/GREC-38)) - Better Never to Have Been (https://smile.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265?sa-no-redirect=1) by David Benatar. Dan Hageman is a biomed engineer who works in immuno-oncology, but in his not-so-free time strives to sell himself as an amateur philosopher and aspiring 'Effective Altruist'. He spends much of this time trying to keep up with impactful charities focused on the reduction and/or prevention of extreme suffering, and in 2020 helped co-found a hopefully burgeoning side project called ‘Match for More (https://www.matchformore.org/)’. He would like to note that the IPAs are to blame for any and all errors/misapprehensions made during his lively discussion with epic friends and podcast hosts, Ben and Vaden. How many insect lives are morally equivalent to one human life? Send us your best guess at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. We'll reveal the correct answer in episode 1000. Update 13/06/21: The original title of this episode was "Meta-ethics Cage Match (with Dan Hageman)" Special Guest: Dan Hageman. moral philosophy, derek parfit, cluelessness, wild animal suffering, thought experiments In a rare turn of events, it just so happened that one or perhaps both of your charming co-hosts spewed a bit of nonsense about Derek Parfit in a previous episode, and we had to bring in a heavy hitter to sort us out. Today we're joined by friend of the podcast Mr. Dan Hageman, immuno-oncologist by day and aspiring ethicist by night, who gently takes us to task for misunderstanding Parfit and the role of ethical theorizing, and for ignoring the suffering of pigeons. The critiques land, and convince Vaden that we should dedicate our resources towards providing safe and affordable contraception for Apex predators.

We cover all sorts of ground in this episode, including:

  • Mistakes we made in our thought experiments episode
  • Is it possible to over-theorize?
  • Wild animal suffering
  • Don't fish eat other fish?!
  • Feline family planning
  • Antinatalism
  • Moral Cluelessness
  • Population ethics and the repugnant conclusion (Ha!)
  • Similarities and differences between theoretical physics and theoretical philosophy

References:

Dan Hageman is a biomed engineer who works in immuno-oncology, but in his not-so-free time strives to sell himself as an amateur philosopher and aspiring 'Effective Altruist'. He spends much of this time trying to keep up with impactful charities focused on the reduction and/or prevention of extreme suffering, and in 2020 helped co-found a hopefully burgeoning side project called ‘Match for More’. He would like to note that the IPAs are to blame for any and all errors/misapprehensions made during his lively discussion with epic friends and podcast hosts, Ben and Vaden.

How many insect lives are morally equivalent to one human life? Send us your best guess at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. We'll reveal the correct answer in episode 1000.

Update 13/06/21: The original title of this episode was "Meta-ethics Cage Match (with Dan Hageman)"

Special Guest: Dan Hageman.

Support Increments

]]> In a rare turn of events, it just so happened that one or perhaps both of your charming co-hosts spewed a bit of nonsense about Derek Parfit in a previous episode, and we had to bring in a heavy hitter to sort us out. Today we're joined by friend of the podcast Mr. Dan Hageman, immuno-oncologist by day and aspiring ethicist by night, who gently takes us to task for misunderstanding Parfit and the role of ethical theorizing, and for ignoring the suffering of pigeons. The critiques land, and convince Vaden that we should dedicate our resources towards providing safe and affordable contraception for Apex predators.

We cover all sorts of ground in this episode, including:

  • Mistakes we made in our thought experiments episode
  • Is it possible to over-theorize?
  • Wild animal suffering
  • Don't fish eat other fish?!
  • Feline family planning
  • Antinatalism
  • Moral Cluelessness
  • Population ethics and the repugnant conclusion (Ha!)
  • Similarities and differences between theoretical physics and theoretical philosophy

References:

Dan Hageman is a biomed engineer who works in immuno-oncology, but in his not-so-free time strives to sell himself as an amateur philosopher and aspiring 'Effective Altruist'. He spends much of this time trying to keep up with impactful charities focused on the reduction and/or prevention of extreme suffering, and in 2020 helped co-found a hopefully burgeoning side project called ‘Match for More’. He would like to note that the IPAs are to blame for any and all errors/misapprehensions made during his lively discussion with epic friends and podcast hosts, Ben and Vaden.

How many insect lives are morally equivalent to one human life? Send us your best guess at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. We'll reveal the correct answer in episode 1000.

Update 13/06/21: The original title of this episode was "Meta-ethics Cage Match (with Dan Hageman)"

Special Guest: Dan Hageman.

Support Increments

]]> #25 - Mathematical Explanation with Mark Colyvan https://www.incrementspodcast.com/25 1a5864a9-d5d7-43af-b8d6-e78dcb1d90c3 Mon, 24 May 2021 14:00:00 -0700 Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani full Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani We're joined by professor Mark Colyvan to talk about the philosophy of mathematics, logic, and thought experiments. 2:07:37 no We often talk of explanation in the context of empirical sciences, but what about explanation in logic and mathematics? Is there such a thing? If so, what does it look like and what are the consequences? In this episode we sit down with professor of philosophy Mark Colyvan and explore How mathematical explanation differs from explanation in the natural sciences Counterfactual reasoning in mathematics Intra versus extra mathematical explanation Alternate logics Mathematical thought experiments The use of probability in the courtroom References: - The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences (https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf) by Eugene Wigner. - Proofs and Refutations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#:~:text=Proofs%20and%20Refutations%3A%20The%20Logic,characteristic%20defined%20for%20the%20polyhedron.) by Imre Lakatos. Mark Colyvan (http://www.colyvan.com/) is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sydney, and a visiting professor (and, previously, Humboldt fellow) at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. He has a wide array of research interests, including the philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, decision theory, environmental philosophy, and ecology. He has authored three books: The Indispensability of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow (Oxford University Press, 2004, co-authored with Lev Ginzburg), and An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2012). Special Guest: Mark Colyvan. counterfactual, explanation, philosophy of mathematics, logic, thought experiments We often talk of explanation in the context of empirical sciences, but what about explanation in logic and mathematics? Is there such a thing? If so, what does it look like and what are the consequences? In this episode we sit down with professor of philosophy Mark Colyvan and explore

  • How mathematical explanation differs from explanation in the natural sciences
  • Counterfactual reasoning in mathematics
  • Intra versus extra mathematical explanation
  • Alternate logics
  • Mathematical thought experiments
  • The use of probability in the courtroom

References:

Mark Colyvan is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sydney, and a visiting professor (and, previously, Humboldt fellow) at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. He has a wide array of research interests, including the philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, decision theory, environmental philosophy, and ecology. He has authored three books: The Indispensability of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow (Oxford University Press, 2004, co-authored with Lev Ginzburg), and An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Special Guest: Mark Colyvan.

Support Increments

]]> We often talk of explanation in the context of empirical sciences, but what about explanation in logic and mathematics? Is there such a thing? If so, what does it look like and what are the consequences? In this episode we sit down with professor of philosophy Mark Colyvan and explore

  • How mathematical explanation differs from explanation in the natural sciences
  • Counterfactual reasoning in mathematics
  • Intra versus extra mathematical explanation
  • Alternate logics
  • Mathematical thought experiments
  • The use of probability in the courtroom

References:

Mark Colyvan is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sydney, and a visiting professor (and, previously, Humboldt fellow) at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. He has a wide array of research interests, including the philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, decision theory, environmental philosophy, and ecology. He has authored three books: The Indispensability of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow (Oxford University Press, 2004, co-authored with Lev Ginzburg), and An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Special Guest: Mark Colyvan.

Support Increments

]]> #22 - Thinking Through Thought Experiments https://www.incrementspodcast.com/22 Buzzsprout-8336503 Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:00:00 -0700 Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani full Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani 1:16:16 no <p>In this episode, we discuss Peter Singer's famous drowning child thought experiment, the role of moral theories, and the role of thought experiments in moral reasoning. From our perspectives, the conversation went something like this:  <br><br>Ben's POV: Bravely and boldly trying to think through problems, Ben puts forward a <em>stunningly</em> insightful theory about the role of moral argumentation. Vaden, jealous of the profundity of Ben's message, tries to disagree but can't. <br><br>Vaden's POV: What the eff is Ben talking about? I disagree. No wait nvm I agree. Let's change the subject. <br><br><em>References in intro segment: </em></p><ul> <li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OgXqC9rVNo&amp;ab_channel=OxfordKarlPopperSociety">Talk by Joseph Agassi</a></li> <li>Robert Sapolsky's book <a href="https://www.amazon.ca/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst/dp/1594205078">Behave</a> </li> <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment">Milgram experiments</a></li> <li> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment">Stanford Prison Experiments</a> (see also: Radio Lab's <a href="https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/180092-the-bad-show">The Bad Show</a>)</li> </ul><p><em>References in main  segment:</em></p><ul> <li> <a href="https://personal.lse.ac.uk/robert49/teaching/mm/articles/Singer_1972Famine.pdf">Famine, Affluence, and Morality</a> by Peter Singer</li> <li> <a href="https://www.preventsuffering.org/">The Organization for the Prevention of Intense Suffering</a> (OPIS) </li> <li> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasons_and_Persons">Reasons and Persons</a> by Derek Parfit</li> <li>Galileo's thought experiment: <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10670-020-00263-y">Parts of Falling Objects</a> </li> <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments">Einstein's thought experiments</a></li> </ul><p><em> </em><br>Put on a suit and drown a child before sending your best moral theory to <em>incrementspodcast@gmail.com</em>. <br><br></p> peter singer, thought experiments, derek parfit, einstein In this episode, we discuss Peter Singer's famous drowning child thought experiment, the role of moral theories, and the role of thought experiments in moral reasoning. From our perspectives, the conversation went something like this: 

Ben's POV: Bravely and boldly trying to think through problems, Ben puts forward a stunningly insightful theory about the role of moral argumentation. Vaden, jealous of the profundity of Ben's message, tries to disagree but can't.

Vaden's POV: What the eff is Ben talking about? I disagree. No wait nvm I agree. Let's change the subject.

References in intro segment: 

References in main  segment:

 
Put on a suit and drown a child before sending your best moral theory to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. 

Support Increments

]]> In this episode, we discuss Peter Singer's famous drowning child thought experiment, the role of moral theories, and the role of thought experiments in moral reasoning. From our perspectives, the conversation went something like this: 

Ben's POV: Bravely and boldly trying to think through problems, Ben puts forward a stunningly insightful theory about the role of moral argumentation. Vaden, jealous of the profundity of Ben's message, tries to disagree but can't.

Vaden's POV: What the eff is Ben talking about? I disagree. No wait nvm I agree. Let's change the subject.

References in intro segment: 

References in main  segment:

 
Put on a suit and drown a child before sending your best moral theory to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. 

Support Increments

]]>